In my house, if I don't write it down then it doesn't get done. Period.

Day-dreaming during work often means you miss out on what is going on around you while your mind drifts, but a new study suggests that day-dreaming may also impair your ability to retain information acquired just prior to embarking on your mental mini-journey.

Peter Delaney, a professor of psychology at the Univ. of N.C.-Greensboro, led a team of researchers in probing what’s called the “amnesic effect” of day-dreaming by doing two simple experiments with college students.

In the first experiment, the team asked the students to memorize word lists, then they asked them to day-dream about their parents’ house or about their own house. In the second experiment, they asked them to memorize word lists and then day-dream about either an international or a domestic vacation. In each experiment, the disparity in the cognitive meanderings was set up to test whether mental distance had any effect upon the mind’s ability to recall the word lists.

The results are intriguing because the students whose thoughts dawdled on long-distance vacations performed much worse at recalling the word lists than those that thought of domestic getaways. Likewise, the students who lingered on thoughts of their parents home tended to also fare worse at the memory recall tasks than those who day-dreamed about their own homes.

What might explain this disparity? According to the authors, the experiment did not test only physical distance. Rather, it was set up to test mental distance from the reality of a moment, whether that distance was induced by geography, time or even cultural context. Psychologists dub this the “context-change account” of directed forgetting. The authors explain, “The context-change account proposes that shifting one’s thoughts to something different such as a diversionary thought sets up a new mental context in which subsequent items are encoded.” And this mental-context shift causes your mind to peter out at recalling the information acquired from the previous mental context.

Because past research shows that physically moving from one environment to another can produce forgetting, the researchers wanted to look at what happens when people travel through mental space and time. They hypothesized that merely imagining a change in physical location might induce forgetting because people tend to “immerse themselves in the context of that event.” And they figured that the more difference there was between the reality of where a person is in space and time, and where they travel to mentally, then the greater degree of recently encoded information that might be nixed.

With the amount of day-dreaming that I do daily, this makes me wonder how I manage to remember anything at all. Oh yes, post-it notes. Lots of post-it notes.

Moral of the story? If you day-dream at work, and wish to keep your job, try to anchor that drifting mind closer to your cubicle.

NOTES:

Peter F. Delaney, Lili Sahakyan, Colleen M. Kelley, and Carissa A. Zimmerman. 2010. Remembering to Forget: The Amnesic Effect of Daydreaming. Psychological Science. 21(7) 1036–1042. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610374739.

Paul Goldberg

Dr. Anil Potti, the Duke University cancer researcher whose resume and research are under scrutiny, is the ideal target for Paul Goldberg, the editor of The Cancer Letter. Goldberg, who has an uncanny sense for hubris, is building a reputation for outing bad apples among cancer researchers, and he has dug up some interesting documents about Potti.

I met Goldberg a year ago at a training course the National Institutes of Health put on for science writers. He was one of the speakers and talked about a lunch cancer researcher whose research was flawed and who failed to disclose the $3.6 million she had received from a cigarette maker.

After I read The Cancer Letter’s special issue about Potti, I called Goldberg and got his permission to link to the documents supporting the stories.

There is:

• A copy of the letter more than two dozen biostatisticians wrote to Dr. Harold Varmus, newly appointed director of the National Cancer Institute, urging for a public inquiry.
• A copy of the American Cancer Society letter that notified Dr. Sandy Williams, vice chancellor for academic affairs at Duke’s Medical Center, that payments were being halted on a $729,000 grant Potti had been awarded.
• Three versions of Potti’s resume. One version that includes his now disputed claim of being a Rhodes scholar, a second version that also includes the claim and a third version that doesn’t. Potti used the two versions that include the claim while he was a research fellow at Duke. At the time of the third version, he was already an assistant professor in Duke’s department of medicine and the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy.
• A copy of Potti’s residency application at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine, which includes his educational history in India, a transcript from his medical college in India and a personal statement.
• A faculty profile of Potti, which was published in 2007 in Genome Life, a newsletter of Duke’s Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy. The profile calls him a Rhodes scholar.

Resume padding to gain academic stature is nothing new.

A few months ago, a former Harvard students was indicted for falsifying the resume that got him into the Ivy League school and several scholarships. Last year, California regulators found out that a new law to regulate air pollution was based on statistical work done by a researcher who hadn’t earned a doctorate in statistics from the University of California at Davis as he had claimed. Three years ago, the dean of admissions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had to resign when it became clear she had inflated her resume with degrees she never received.

Dr. Anil Potti

But Duke has bigger problems than suspected resume padding by a rising star. The Lancet Oncology, a British medical journal, and the American Cancer Society are investigating potential errors in Potti’s research, because other researchers have been unable to independently replicate breakthrough statistical findings that promised to predict which chemotherapy is best for each cancer patient.

Questions about possible statistical errors in Potti’s research came up last year. Duke halted three clinical trials Potti was involved in and investigated, but didn’t allow outsiders to double-check the data in question, according to Goldberg.

Being able to repeat an experiment and come up with the same results is a basic tenet of research. It’s the litmus test to separate fact from fiction in science.

Duke has had problems with basics before.

• In 2003, Jesica Santillan, a 17-year-old Mexican immigrant, died after receiving a heart-lung transplant at Duke University Hospital. The transplant was from a donor with the wrong blood type.
• In 2005, surgical instruments at two hospitals in the Duke University Health System were washed in used hydraulic fluid instead of detergent. The mixup wasn’t detected for weeks, because administrative staff failed to heed multiple complaints by staff.
• In 2008, research of Homme Hellenga, a Duke professor of biochemistry known for his work with designer enzymes, came under fire and he had to retract two research papers because other researchers who repeat his experiments cannot get the same results. According to a story in the magazine Nature, a student in Hellinga’s lab had raised questions about the experiments before the results were published.

Dr. Anil Potti, a Duke cancer researcher, was suspended last week after his claim to have been a Rhodes scholar could not be confirmed. Duke also halted enrollment in three clinical trials that Potti lead. The trials used gene-based test results of drug sensitivity to predict cancer patients’ responses to chemotherapy drugs.

Potti and colleagues at Duke also did the statistical analysis for a report published in the Lancet Oncology three years ago. The report was based on results from a clinical trial involving breast cancer patients. The published report was titled, “Validation of gene signatures that predict the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

The report, which had 19 co-authors, was an important step toward personalized medicine.

But the Lancet Oncology today expressed concern over errors that two of the report’s authors detected in the statistical analysis by Potti and his Duke colleagues.

Here it is: S0140673610701856

The Lancet investigation goes way beyond potentially false claims of one Duke researcher being a Rhodes scholar. Questions of research methods and errors reach beyond one possibly rogue researcher and potentially put patients’ lives at risk.

Today, I asked Stephanie Willen Brown to answer a few questions.

Welcome to A Blog Around The Clock. Would you, please, tell my readers a little bit more about yourself? Where are you coming from (both geographically and philosophically)? What is your (scientific) background?

I’m Stephanie Willen Brown, aka CogSciLibrarian living in the Triangle area in North Carolina. I’ve been a librarian since 1996, and I started calling myself the CogSciLibrarian in 2004, when I was the librarian for the School of Cognitive Science at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA. I started the blog as a way of sharing cool cognitive science stories and books that I thought my colleagues would enjoy.

My scientific background is limited to that of a librarian, supporting faculty and students working in cognitive science, communications, and psychology over the years. I’d grown up intimidated by math and science, but cognitive / brain / neuroscience is so interesting AND there is so much good, accessible writing about it that I have become a fan.

My current reading interests include the effect of mindfulness on the brain, the development and use of language, and concussions in NFL and other athletes.

Tell us a little more about your career trajectory so far: interesting projects past and present?

I’m thrilled to be working at my dream job, as director of the Park Library at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. It incorporates many of my interests, such as library science, journalism, marketing, and advertising. I am a consumer of mass media, and I love to be around academics who are studying various aspects mass communication.

My first love is helping students and colleagues find resources that will enhance their research, and the work is double-plus good when it involves subject matter I find interesting as well as amazing library colleagues at the UNC Libraries.

I do miss supporting cognitive and communication science, as I don’t have much interaction with my all-time favorite database PsycINFO. It’s got great content and robust metadata (did you know you could limit your search to age group of subjects studied? Or that you can limit results to just empirical studies or literature reviews?), though it’s not the go-to database of choice for mass communication.

What aspect of science communication and/or particular use of the Web in science interests you the most?

Science needs good public relations right now, and I agree with @ErinBiba’s essay in the May issue of Wired “Why Science Needs to Step Up Its PR Game.” I’d like to play a small part in the merger of science and PR by training public relations professionals to do good research and generally supporting their academic endeavors. Libraries and news* (newspapers, news outlets, etc.) need good public relations too, but that’s for another post.

How does (if it does) blogging figure in your work? How about social networks, e.g., Twitter, FriendFeed and Facebook? Do you find all this online activity to be a net positive (or even a necessity) in what you do?

One of the great things about my job is that I feel empowered – even obligated! – to read about social networking and participate in various social networks professionally and personally. I promote the Park Library via Twitter (@JoMCParkLib and Facebook and have dabbled in FriendFeed.

I believe we in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication should be teaching our students to use social networks in their professional work, so I think of myself as modeling good professional use of social networks.

I tweet as @CogSciLibrarian as well, which is where I keep up with my science buddies and science news.

When and how did you first discover science blogs? What are some of your favourites? Have you discovered any cool science blogs by the participants at the Conference?

I discovered science blogs years ago as I began my own blog, though I read science librarian blogs such as John Dupuis’ Confessions of a Science Librarian more than practicing scientist blogs. I met science documentarian Kerstin Hoppenhaus at ScienceOnline2010 and really enjoy her More Than Honey blog.

I’ve since migrated to Twitter for most of my online / science interactions, and I follow some great science folks there, including @SteveSilberman , @tdelene (DeLene Beeland), @VaughanBell (contributor to Mind Hacks), and my favorite psychology radio show @allinthemind (Australia’s Natasha Mitchell).

What was the best aspect of ScienceOnline2010 for you? Any suggestions for next year? Is there anything that happened at this Conference – a session, something someone said or did or wrote – that will change the way you think about science communication, or something that you will take with you to your job, blog-reading and blog-writing?

Gosh, I loved #scio10! It was great to be exposed to so much science in a casual, friendly environment, and I enjoyed spending time with like-minded librarians like Christina Pikas, John Dupuis, and Bonnie Swoger . I was also happy to meet Irtiqa’s Salman Hameed and Tom Linden’s Master’s students in UNC’s Program in Medical & Science Journalism. There were many more as well, but the most amazing aspect of ScienceOnline is the interaction with interesting and interested science, journalism, and library professionals. I have just put #scio11 on my calendar and look forward to meeting more interesting folks!

Thank you so much for the interview. I hope to see you soon, and of course at the next conference in January.

In 2003 the US Department of Agriculture created the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP, then known as “Section 9006”) to provide grants to farmers and rural small businesses to cover up to 25% of the total costs associated with purchasing and installing renewable energy systems and making energy efficiency improvements.

As with any government program however, there’s a tedious process to go through and paperwork to fill out before receiving the funds. One of the first steps in the process is having an independent professional engineer conduct an audit estimating the potential energy savings on the specific project that they’re applying for to receive grant money. Kurt Creamer, Ph.D., says that the “actual percentage energy savings, in some cases are quite phenomenal.”

That’s where Senergy Inc., the Apex-based company hired to conduct these energy audits, comes in. Kurt Creamer, PhD, president of Senergy, founded the company in 2003 in response to REAP while he was still enrolled in the Biological and Agricultural Engineering PhD program at North Carolina State University and working full-time at the school. Even though there was a new need for energy auditors, business remained relatively slow for a few years.

“In the early days farmers had to pay up front for the energy audits which were often times quite difficult for the farmers,” Creamer said. Business for Senergy spread solely through word-of-mouth and only those farmers that could afford to front the initial costs of an audit got on board for the first 5-6 years of the program.

But then, in 2008, the North Carolina Farm Bureau got involved. The Farm Bureau covers the costs of the audits up front so that the farmers are much more willing to go through the process of applying for the REAP grants. The program (and business for Senergy) skyrocketed. It’s “been a real boom to my business to have the Farm Bureau involved in the project,” Creamer said.

Senergy’s work

Senergy typically works with farmers in Eastern North Carolina specializing in grain farms, but has had the opportunity over the years to work with a variety of types of farms including tobacco farms, some on swine & poultry farms, and a handful of dairy farms, often times on some very nontraditional projects.

One particular project on a hog farm required comparing the energy efficiency of burning the dead hogs to composting them—composting is more energy efficient, in case you were wondering. Creamer has also worked on energy efficient organic dairy farm feed grinding systems, poultry barns, irrigation systems, and grain dryers. But he’s not just limited to working on energy efficiency projects. Kurt also works on some renewable energy projects, including one this fall where he’ll be working on a “project to look at the use of sweet potatoes in an anaerobic digester,” Creamer explained, that “could generate enough biogas from the sweet potatoes to meet the requirements of the farm.”

What’s next?

Creamer says that he would love to expand in several ways:

• Geographically: There is still plenty of opportunity to pursue this program in other parts of North Carolina and beyond
• Explore the energy needs of rural small businesses (outside of the farm base)
• Take on more renewable energy projects
• Improve his engineering methodologies

At the end of the day Creamer says he really enjoys the work he does and “it’s a really good program for the farmers, and a good program for the environment.”

Today, I asked William Saleu to answer a few questions:

Welcome to A Blog Around The Clock. Would you, please, tell my readers a little bit more about yourself? Where are you coming from (both geographically and philosophically)? What is your (scientific) background?

My name is William Saleu and I blog at BomaiCruz. I am from Papua New Guinea (PNG), an independent island nation making up the eastern part of the island of New Guinea which lies immediately north of Australia. I am a research fellow at the Duke University Marine Lab (DUML) in Beaufort, North Carolina.

I am part of a team that studies population structure and species connectivity among invertebrates from hydrothermal vent systems from the western Pacific. Most of our samples were collected from PNG so as you can imagine I have naturally taken up a personal interest in this subject. My ultimate goal is to be able to use the results of this research and other similar work to help identify and design conservation strategies for these unique ecosystems in PNG.

Tell us a little more about your career trajectory so far: interesting projects past and present?

So one might wonder how I ended up doing this. To answer that question I will have to take you back to my final days as an undergraduate at the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG). I was a biophysics major and was almost at the end of my program when I realized that my options for employment after college were very slim and I decided to look at opportunities for post grad research at UPNG. I spoke to my physics advisor but he was not so enthusiastic about having me on his projects but told me to come up with my own project.

I was sitting in a microbiology class when I heard the professor say something about chemosynthetic bacteria and how they were the basis of life at hydrothermal vents but she went on to say that because of the extreme conditions they lived in, not much was known about them as it was very hard to culture them. I also found out then that we had hydrothermal vent systems in PNG that geologists were so interested in studying. This was it, this was the project I was looking for. I decided I was going to build an incubator that would house pressure sensors and thermometers and could go all the way down to the sea floor, collect these bacteria and bring them to the surface at similar conditions to that of their sea floor habitats, little did I know that people in the developed world have already invented deep sea submersibles and remotely operated vehicles that did the same thing. Anyway, my proposal never went through as no one in PNG ever took it seriously.

I ended up in the streets like so many other Papua New Guineas before me who had gone through college but could not find anything to do. Then, one day while reading a newspaper, I came across an advertisement for people with advanced degrees in science to submit applications for a semester long traineeship at Duke University Marine Lab (DUML). I did not have an advanced degree but one of the requirements was that applicants should have sound knowledge in molecular biology and lab work skills and I knew I could use this to my advantage as I had been an intern at the PNG Institute of Medical Research’s molecular and virology labs and this was the only lab in PNG doing molecular work.
Well, I submitted an application and got the opportunity and came over for the traineeship and went home but thanks to the network I have set up before, I am back now as a research fellow studying the same things that I wanted to work with when I was an undergrad.

How does (if it does) blogging figure in your work? How about social networks, e.g., Twitter, FriendFeed and Facebook? Do you find all this online activity to be a net positive (or even a necessity) in what you do?

As far as my blogging family tree goes, I guess I will look up to Southern Fried Science as my blog parent and Deep Sea News as the granny. These guys have been awesome at helping me in everything from day one of BomaiCruz. The name ‘Bomai’ hails from the Simbu language of PNG and would translate for someone from the deep jungles, while ‘Cruz’ is from tok pisin, one of the three main languages of Papua New Guinea. ‘Cruz’ actually means to wonder around, hence, BomaiCruz, “someone from the deep jungles wondering around.”

I did not know about blogging, Twitter or Facebook before coming to the USA but am now on Twitter as BomaiBlat and on Facebook too. All this is very exciting for me but keeping up to speed with every one of them can be quite a hassle. I have found that networking can be quite addictive but is also so much fun and is a great way of sharing information and learning about what is going on in the world or just to take part in arguments and discussions. Personally, I have learnt so much more from networking and socializing with other members however, my only word of advice here is that networking and socializing can be so much fun as long as you know how to control its use.

What was the best aspect of ScienceOnline2010 for you? Any suggestions for next year? Is there anything that happened at this Conference – a session, something someone said or did or wrote – that will change the way you think about science communication, or something that you will take with you to your job, blog-reading and blog-writing?

I know this is not going to go down well with other bloggers but I was lucky enough to attend the ScienceOnline conference just a few weeks after I posted the first blog post on my wall. Unfortunately I cannot make comparisons with past science online conferences but from what I saw in this year’s conference, I should say that it was one of the best conferences I have been to in terms of organization and set up. There are two sessions I will remember for a very long time, first was Rebecca Skloot where she was talking about her book and the second and I should say, the one I really liked was the Open Access talk. I think the importance of Open Access as outlined by the speakers is one thing I will take away with me and make sure to pass on to others that I might end up working with.

It was so nice to meet you in person and thank you for the interview. I hope to see you again next January.

Today, I asked Anne Frances Johnson to answer a few questions. Anne is a freelancer and grad student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Welcome to A Blog Around The Clock. Would you, please, tell my readers a little bit more about yourself? Where are you coming from (both geographically and philosophically)? What is your (scientific) background?

When I was a kid, I, like all 8-year-old girls, wanted to be a marine biologist and ride around on dolphins. A couple decades later, I’m still into science and nature, but I don’t actually ride wild animals. I’m a freelance science writer and master’s student in the Medical & Science Journalism program at UNC. I like to think it’s as fun as riding dolphins, but probably better for the environment.

I’m originally from Raleigh, NC, and I’ve recently come full circle back to the Triangle after more than ten years away with stops in New Mexico, New England, New Zealand and Washington, DC (I lived there even though it doesn’t have “new” in its name). I have a B.A. in biology from Smith College, where I spent lots of time cutting open fish stomachs for my thesis on lobster predation (What Eats Lobsters besides People?).

I always liked learning about science, but in college I found actually doing it to be rather gooey and tedious, and decided I probably didn’t have the endurance for it as a career. I found myself gravitating instead toward the edges of science, where it interacts with society. I worked at a marine reserve in New Zealand, patrolled Costa Rican beaches for would-be sea-turtle-egg poachers, and tended persimmons, goats and alpacas on various farms here and abroad. But it wasn’t until my first “real” job–at the National Academy of Sciences–that I discovered science writing. Instantly smitten, I’ve been a ravenous science reader and writer ever since.

Tell us a little more about your career trajectory so far: interesting projects past and present?

My first science communications piece was an educational booklet on stem cells. Most of the stem cell information available at the time followed either the science community’s party line (embryonic stem cells are more useful than adult stem cells so we should use them) or the conservative/political party line (scientists want to kill babies and we should stop them). Since I was working for a scientific organization, it would have been simple to take the usual tack, but we decided it was really time to go beyond that. I spent a lot of time talking to people ethically opposed to human embryonic stem cell research and tried to craft the booklet so it could reach those folks on their terms, while still being true to the science. Dealing with both the scientific and ethical issues head-on ultimately made it a more useful product for people, and tens of thousands of the booklets found their way into schools and doctors’ offices. It was very rewarding.

After that, I had the pleasure of developing a whole slew of other booklets (and posters and gadgets and websites) on topics including how to plant a pollinator-friendly garden, why microbes are cool and what the new science of “metagenomics” can tell us, and how climate change might affect ecosystems across the U.S. It’s been a constant learning experience.

What is taking up the most of your time and passion these days? What are your goals?

Last year I decided to go back to school to pick up some additional communications skills I wasn’t sure I could learn on the job. So now I’m a science journalism grad student. Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the curriculum is the multimedia work I’m doing. I know “multimedia” is a silly buzzword, but it really is useful to be able to apply whatever combination of media–text, sound, video, graphics, animations–is right for the topic at hand. I’m enjoying learning to wield all those tools and figuring out how to leverage the strengths of each to communicate in an engaging way.

Although teamwork is incredibly powerful, it’s also useful to be able to function as a “one-woman-band,” with a complete suite of skills to produce everything from documentaries to press releases myself. Wherever I end up after I graduate in 2011, I hope I’ll be able to apply all my fun new skills and continue to learn and adapt to the changing communications landscape.

What’s up with going to journalism school? No offense, but isn’t that a dying industry?

I get that a lot. Journalism school is actually alive and well, even in the current climate. The journalism business model is in a period of adjustment that’s leaving a lot of traditional journalists out of work, and that’s too bad. But I think people are hungrier than ever for information, and for the most part they know the difference between bad information and good information. I think there will always be a role for good journalistic work–especially when it comes to science topics.

Career-wise, I’m more interested in communications than traditional journalism, but I think going through this experience of learning to write more like a journalist makes me a stronger communications person. I also just love being in journalism school because I’m surrounded by really creative thinkers from all different backgrounds, which challenges me to go beyond the obvious and try different approaches.

What aspect of science communication and/or particular use of the Web in science interests you the most?

I love that there’s this vast array of genuinely interesting science content online that teachers can use as part of science education. Science education has had a terrible reputation for a long time. The Web gives teachers and parents opportunities to engage children in ways that have never existed before. Kids can interact with the scientific world on their terms and keep following the leads that interest them most. It sure beats those awful textbooks and cheesy videos I remember from childhood.

How does (if it does) blogging figure in your work? How about social networks, e.g., Twitter, FriendFeed and Facebook? Do you find all this online activity to be a net positive (or even a necessity) in what you do?

I have a healthy skepticism about using blogs and social networking in science communications. Organizations pour so much into getting their content out in all these different ways. They’re available and “free,” so why not? And sometimes they’re really effective at amplifying your reach and visibility. But they’re not magical. Sometimes, you’re better off simply producing more or better actual content, and your resources would be better spent focusing on the dissemination avenues that are most effective for your specific target audiences. There’s always a trade-off between quantity and quality, between producing new content and promoting your existing content. You have to hit the right balance, and I think blogs and social networking can be distracting if you don’t keep them in perspective. I try to use ‘em when they’re right for the task, and leave ‘em when they’re not.

What was the best aspect of ScienceOnline2010 for you? Any suggestions for next year? Is there anything that happened at this Conference – a session, something someone said or did or wrote – that will change the way you think about science communication, or something that you will take with you to your job, blog-reading and blog-writing?

One of my favorite experiences was getting to hold these really old dead birds they keep in the bowels of the NC Museum of Natural Sciences. There were just racks and racks of them. We got to pass them around, and they were so astoundingly light and beautiful. It was fun to connect with nature in the way that taxonomists have for years and years, where you can take note of the tiniest differences among species. I loved that behind-the-scenes tour, and would be thrilled to be able do more of the tours next year.

On blogging, the conference perhaps counter-intuitively convinced me that it’s okay not to blog about science. Seeing all those people blogging and tweeting so passionately, I thought, you know, there’s room for all types here. And if daily blogging isn’t my thing, it’s okay. People are blogging about science, and people are writing involved, long-form articles and books about science, and folks will continue to be engaged with science on whatever basis is useful for them–whether it’s monthly, daily or by the second. There are so many possibilities, so many ways for people to talk about science. With all those opportunities, you can really shop around and focus on what you can do best.

Thank you so much for the interview. I hope you will come to the meeting again next January.

A few recent reminders that we are frail, vulnerable beings in a world dominated by microbes both good and evil: Listeria-laced pre-packaged spinach was found in an Elizabeth City store; a boil-water advisory was issued in Smithfield after a test showed coliform contamination (thankfully, a false alarm—there was no E. coli); and a flight to Charlotte turned around after someone inexplicably brought spoiled meat on board and maggots fell from the overhead bin.

Last month, NC State University researcher Dr. Ben Chapman and colleagues published some alarming findings about unsafe food handling in commercial kitchens. The team placed cameras unobtrusively around eight kitchens for seven weeks and then analyzed the footage. They counted an average of one cross-contamination event per food handler per hour. A cross-contamination event puts raw or contaminated foods in contact with ready-to eat items, like cutting a piece of raw chicken and then using the same knife to cut a sandwich in half before serving.

Eww.

With practices like that, it’s no wonder that the majority of food poisoning outbreaks are attributed to meals prepared outside the home. But until this study, practices in commercial kitchens were understood mostly from self-reporting and periodic inspections, leading to a rosier view of what goes on in them than what the videos revealed.

The research team suggests ways food-preparation kitchens can improve their track record by posting food safety infosheets around the kitchen, installing more hand sanitizer dispensers, reducing time-pressure on cooks during peak hours, and making cultural changes in the way food safety training and enforcement is done. But kitchen culture is hard to change, and measures like encouraging workers to stay home when they’re ill aren’t particularly popular with managers who fear abuse of paid sick days, as Chapman observed in a recent post on the strangely addictive food safety blog Barfblog.

Bad behavior by professional chefs doesn’t let us home cooks off the hook, either. My grandmother has used nothing stronger than vinegar to clean everything from chicken leaks to the cat’s flea medicine off the kitchen counter for years, and though I love her to pieces, that’s really not okay. As the CDC preaches, we still need to clean, separate, cook, and chill our food, and keep washing our hands.

More than one in four Americans gets ill each year because of some foodborne illness, says the CDC, landing around 300,000 in the hospital and resulting in 5,000 deaths annually.

And it peaks right now—in the dog (or should that be “contaminated hot dog”) days of summer.

One reason is that bacteria are more active and multiply faster when it’s warm. Another is that people tend to let down their defenses when grilling, camping, or spending a day at the beach, washing their hands, food and utensils less frequently than they would at home in the kitchen.

Now’s the time to be even more vigilant. If you want to remind yourself of all those food safety rules that your grandmother probably didn’t teach you (if she’s like mine), foodsafety.gov has a bunch of resources, including a smart phone app for recall notices.

Of course, food and water contamination doesn’t just come from unsafe practices in home and commercial kitchens. Often, the baddies get into our food somewhere along the vast, complicated supply chain. For more on the broader issues contributing to foodborne illness, stay tuned for the Sigma Xi annual meeting in November, themed “Food Safety and Security: Science and Policy.”

I suspect whoever caters that event will take a little extra care in the kitchen.

Anne Frances Johnson is a freelance science writer and grad student at UNC. www.annefjohnson.com.

Sheila Kannapan, a UNC physics and astronomy professor, and a few of her students are using SOAR to measure the mass of large objects and star clusters in the universe. Their work is part of a survey that, for the first time, will allow astrophysicists to determine the mass of the universe and better understand dark matter.

During a visit to the UNC campus Thursday, where scientists access the telescope from a remote control room, David Stark and David Hendel, two of Kannapan’s students, explained some of the survey work they do.

David Hendel, an astrophysics student at UNC, talks about his work with SOAR.

Kannapan’s students use a spectrograph, an instrument that measures the light from an object.

Standing in front of a board that showed a drawing of the spectrograph and a measurement chart, Hendel and Stark said the measurements allow assessments about what the light is made of and how far away an object really is.

On a television screen nearby, I and my fellow science writers could watch telescope operators in Chile working their shift and watching us through a Web cam mounted on the screen.

The computer screen below the TV showed a rendering of the Sombrero Galaxy, which is visible through amateur telescopes. Hendel showed us the bright speck on the lower edge of the galaxy that is a new object UNC astrophysicists are studying.

As part of our visit, which was organized by the Triangle-based group of science writers SCONC, we also listened to a presentation by Gerald Cecil, a UNC physics and astronomy professor who teaches students how to build stargazing instruments.

Gerald Cecil

Cecil, who helped design and build SOAR, hopes to this year finish an instrument made with fiberglass cables that would provide a grid of light measurements rather than just a thin slice.

But now the bad news about SOAR, as laid out by Cecil, a wiry, hands-on teacher who’s frustrated by the difficulty of getting funding. (On the bottom of his Web site, Cecil has a running account of the costs of U.S. oil imports and the Iraq war.)

UNC astrophysics, a small department of about half a dozen professors, can get on SOAR 60 nights of the year. That’s fairly unique access to a telescope like SOAR, which is designed to produce the best quality images of any observatory in its class in the world.

To gain this access for 20 years, UNC paid $8 million up front, which did not include ongoing maintenance costs. That’s another $80,000 to $100,000 every year.

Fund-raising efforts have begun to continue the SOAR project, which is also funded by Michigan State University, the U.S. National Optical Astronomy Observatory and Brazil. But money is tight at public universities like UNC and Michigan and federal stimulus money to boost research and development isn’t available for a telescope on top of a Chilean mountain.

Cecil worries that in 2016, when access to SOAR must be renewed, UNC astrophysicists will lose the 60 nights in the sky that now allow them to complete research in a couple of weeks that otherwise would take a year.

Dan Vorhaus

Dan Vorhaus is a lawyer with Robinson Bradshaw and Hinson in Charlotte, N.C. where a portion of his practice comprises the growing field of personal genomics law. Given the interest in personal genomics in the Triangle, I thought I’d create an expanded version of the short question-and-answer interview I did with him for an up-coming issue of the Sci-Tech section in the Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News and Observer (be on the lookout for that next Monday in print and online), and post it here. Vorhaus also authors the Genomics Law Report, a blog about the legal side of personal genomics, and he will be giving testimony to the Food and Drug Administration in the near future as the agency attempts to sort out particulars of how it plans to regulate genomic diagnostic testing.

How did you become interested in concentrating on personal genomics as an area of the law?
I have a master’s in bioethics; I did that degree before I went to law school. So as I started thinking about the areas of law and policy that were most interesting to me, that was clearly one of them. And it seemed like there was a tremendous opportunity for a field that is developing and emerging and creating all sorts of new and exciting legal issues. And it’s something that I’ve always had an interest in the underlying science and technology, and I was fortunate enough in law school to start working with some real pioneers in the field, specifically George Church in the personal genome field. Everything sort of built from there. Now, it’s how I make my living, it’s my career. And I love it. It’s something new and fascinating every single day and I can’t get enough of it.

It sounds like the bioethics degree had a big influence on you.
It did, although I already had this interest before, that was what caused me to pursue the bioethics degree. And I knew I was going to law school. I kind of applied those two things simultaneously. So, they have kind of worked together simultaneously. And I decided kind of early on that I was more interested in pursuing the law than some of the pure policy or philosophy or ethical issues behind a lot of these technologies. I think there is a real need… One thing you find with the law is that new areas tend to lag in new areas of technology and new areas of social development. And that is certainly true in the areas of personal genomics, personalized medicine, there is a long way for the law to go to catch up to where science and technology already are. And they continue to press on ahead. And the law continues to play catch up. So it seems that there is a real opportunity to be involved in helping to lay the legal framework for what I think will be important and meaningful technologies and services in people lives for years and decades to come.

That formalizes what I had suspected, with some of the things I’ve read about the Myriad ruling and the FDA announcing its intent to regulate direct-to-consumer genomic testing, it does seem that these formal regulations and policies are lagging behind the business practices.
That’s right. Both the examples you gave, the Myriad litigation — and really, the state of biotechnology patents more broadly – and the FDA and Congress’s involvement in genetic testing, especially consumer genetic testing, both of those are areas where there is a lot of uncertainty right now whether the law today is doing as good a job as it could be as far as protecting individuals and enabling commerce, and really striking the right balance between allowing the science and the technology to press forward while making sure that we have the right protections in place for people using these technologies. That is always going to be a tension in this area, I don’t ever foresee that dissipating; but that does not mean that we should work any less hard to get that balance as close as we can as quickly as we can.

You’ve posted about the Myriad gene patent litigation, in which a federal judge invalidated patents that Myriad held for human genes, BRCA-1 and BRCA-2, which are used to test for the likelihood of developing breast cancer. What was the most unusual thing about this ruling, because it seems to have caused quite a splash?
You’re right, it does cause a splash, but I would say the splash that it caused is probably greater than its legal significance, at least for right now. It’s important to keep in mind that this was a district court ruling, so without getting to much into the weeds, there is a long way to go with this litigation before it gets to the point where it will really impact the commercial landscape, before it really impacts what people feel comfortable doing in laboratories – whether it is research laboratories or commercial laboratories – it needs to .. It’s already been appealed to the federal circuit, which is the federal appeals court that hears patent cases. And it’s quite possible that from there it will go to the Supreme Court, and we’re talking at least another year. Perhaps two. Maybe even three more years before we get a final resolution in this case. The reason I think it garnered so much attention is because it really struck a nerve – and going back to this idea of law not always keeping up with where science is – it really struck a nerve when people heard that there were companies out there that held patents on human genes. And we are talking about isolated human genes, genes outside the body, no one owns you, but it is the case that some companies have patents on genes, and they have the ability if they want – and Myriad has done this because of the way patents work – they grant the patent holders monopoly rights, they have the ability to keep other people from doing tests to analyze those genes, to sequence those genes, to ask what does this mean, in the case of BRCA, for the susceptibility of a woman’s or a man’s, risk of getting breast cancer. And I think that struck a nerve with a lot of people.

It’s not the only sort of development with this area… [Other reports] have gone to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that looked at these issues and looked at the gene patent landscape and said this is a problem, this is impeding our ability to do the type of diagnostic or clinical work that we need to do, to advance the state of science and technology. There is another supreme court case that will likely come out on Monday, that also may be significant as far as the extent of biotech patents, in terms of how far they can reach. And it all goes back to this question of trying to strike the right balance. In the case of patents, we’re trying to strike the right balance of information disclosure and getting these technologies out there and allowing people to benefit from them, and preserving the commercial incentive to investments. That is how our legal system works, we build up this body of law over years and decades – in this case, patenting of human genes which reaches back to a 1980s Supreme Court case, probably even further, and it built up incrementally. And science does not work that way, it moves much faster. It was only 10 years ago that we published the first draft of the human genome sequence, and now, 10 years later, we are routinely sequencing whole genomes, let alone individual genes. And so, again, it’s that pace of technological innovation and scientific advancement that is much faster than we have the ability to move in the legal realm. So that causes a conflict in cases like Myriad where now everyone has to sit down and ask, do we have the right balance here? Should genes be patentable? Is this where we want to be? I think there is plenty of debate about that. It may be something that litigation solves, or maybe Congress steps in, or maybe there are people out there working on industry private solutions to work things out without having to wait on the courts to solve it.

One thing that confused me about this, is the idea of patenting human genes. In the case of Myriad, one of the things I was wondering was why do they have to patent a human gene? Why can’t they just patent their test? That seems like a more level playing field.
You’re right, that would be a more level playing field, and I think the simple answer is that if you are going to invest a lot of money into developing a test and researching an association between a gene a certain disease, and then figuring out the corresponding test, you may not want a level playing field. You may want to do all the testing, and that is what Myriad does. I should mention, there are other companies out there that have patents on human genes, and they have a patent that allows them to have exclusive rights to practice that patent. So, to conduct a test, or even to examine the gene, if the patent is one the gene itself; but they license out that patent or set of patents. Myriad, for example, I think has several dozen patents with almost two hundred claims, so we’re not talking about one or two patents, they have a whole suite of patents, that protects this business they’ve built around diagnostic testing for breast cancer, but there are other companies out there that have similar patents that do license them out to other people, and they say, here you can use this technology, you can use this gene that we’ve patented, there is going to be some sort of commercial terms with that, you’ll pay us some sort of royalty, or some kind of fee based on tests that you do, but you can get in the game too and essentially provide the same sort of service that we are providing.

Or, Myriad is a good example. They did not actually patent this themselves, they licensed this from the University of Utah. And so it is interesting because one of the reasons why Myriad was swept up in this litigation is because there are thousands of genes that are patented, Myriad only has patents on a handful, but the reason they became a target in this litigation is partly due t otheir practice of not licensing out their IP, their intellectual property, and not giving people a chance to conduct or to develop competing gene tests. But that is the prerogative of a patent-holder. You have the right to exclude everybody else from practicing your patented invention. You can wave that right, in the form of a license, out to other people, if you want, but you don’t have to. So that is why there is this big question over what should be patentable. The technical discussion centers around section 101 of the Patent Act which defines what is patentable subject matter. And the question is, are genes patentable subject matter, or are they what is considered to be a product of nature?

Is it that things in the natural world can’t be patented?
Well, it doesn’t specifically say that in the Patent Act, but that is the way it has developed in the case law over time. The 1980 case that I referred to earlier … said that what is patentable is anything under the sun made by man. And there is this products of nature doctrine, and it says, well the Supreme Court says, that something that is a product of nature can’t be patented. And then the question is, what is a product of nature? And Myriad argues, in this case, that this is not a product of nature because you are taking genes, which occur naturally in the body, and you are separating them out, you are isolating them, you are doing things to them technically that make them no longer products of nature. And in the technical sense, that is correct because genes do not naturally occur in laboratories. But what Judge Sweet ruled is that what is fundamentally important in these genes, what really makes them significant, is the information that they carry. And that is the same whether you are talking about a BRCA gene in your body, in my body, or in Myriad’s laboratory. The information content is the same, and that is what is significant, so they are products of nature and they can not be patented. Whether that ruling stands up, remains to be seen. There is quite a good chance that it won’t.

That’s an interesting interpretation.
And it’s one that people share. I think it resonates quite strongly with people at a gut level. But again, there are limits to how that can be implemented by law in courts. Congress of course has the ability to change the law. As has happened in many, many cases, if Congress does not like a law they have the ability to go out and change the law.

The Food and Drug Administration is constricting regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing services offered by companies that scan a person’s genome and offer analysis for health risks or ancestry. What are the FDA’s specific concerns?
It’s interesting… since the whole Walgreens-Pathways thing blew up about five or six weeks ago now, they went after five or six companies. They’ve taken a step back and said, you know, we think we need to regulate all genetic testing. It’s important to remember that most genetic testing is not what is known as DTC [direct to consumer] or commercial or consumer genetic testing. Most of it occurs in a clinical context, done in clinical laboratories, and that is the vast majority of genetic testing on the market right now. Now, the concerns they raise about taking a risk-based approach to regulation, and specifically they are concerned about the safety and efficacy of these tests. So, making sure that the tests are accurate, making sure that – accurate in the sense that when you test for X, you actually get X – that’s what’s called analytical validity.

And then also what is known as clinical validity, which is making sure that the association or the link reported by the tests so that if you do have X, that means you have an increased risk of getting breast cancer, is actually a valid one. And in an area of science that is so new and so changing, that is something that can be difficult to show. Or it may be controversial. So there is a lot of recorded genetic associations that require confirmation, maybe they need more traditional studies to confirm the results, and some studies that have disproved associations, so that is a concern too.

Then there is a third problem which is what is known as clinical utility which is that even if you measure the association correctly and it does mean what you say it does, so you have X, you’ve actually measured X accurately and it does mean that you have an increased risk of disease Y, then clinical utility asks, Can I do anything with this? Can I take this to my doctor and can he start me on a new medication, or tell me that if I lose 15 pounds, then I can prevent myself from developing condition Y. That’s the clinical utility prong, and there is a lot of disagreement there about whether that is something the FDA should really be concerned with, or if that is something that should be left up to individuals. And there are varying definitions as to what constituted clinical utility. Alzheimers is a good example. There aren’t many drugs on the market right now that can be used to reverse the effects of Alzheimers, or be used as a preventative measure for preventing Alzhiemers.

But there are a lot of lifestyle changes that have some evidence that they might help. And there are lot of people that argue that for me, clinical utility means just knowing. If I want to know, then I should be able to know because then I can engage in family planning. I might decide to take an earlier retirement. I might do other things differently. There is going to be a big public meeting July 19 and 20 in DC where I will be at the FDA to talk about some of these issue and give them feedback as they start writing regulations. And of course, in addition to the FDA, the House of Representatives, Congressman Waxman’s committee, have gotten involved with writing letters and they appear to be gearing up to hold hearings and maybe do something in this area. I heard recently that Senator Hatch has a bill out that would address genetic tests and specifically create a new division within the FDA to address those. There is another bill on the House side, I think,… that would also wade into this area. So there are a number of different pathways on the table right now for how the regulation of genetic tests may develop. It’s a bit of a scramble right now.

Even though you said that direct-to consumer genomic tests are a small slice of the genomic testing pie, what legal concerns do consumers need to be aware of when using personal genomic testing?
Well, it is a small… let me back up by saying that consumer genetic testing is a small slice of the overall genetic testing pie, but diagnostics — and that includes an increasingly large percentage of what we think about when we talk about personalized health care – and there are some people that believe that within the not-to-distant future, it’s going to be diagnostics riving therapeutics, so drugs and pharmaceuticals, and not the other way around. Right now, you’ve got these big diagnostic companies, and you’ve got big pharmaceutical companies, but that may flip. We are really looking at, I think, a shift coming down the road. There are some questions associated with consumer tests. A lot of the issues are similar to just the issues associated with learning about genetic information in any context. You want to know that you understand… what information you will find out, if it will be useful to you.

There have always been concerns about somebody else getting ahold of that information and somebody else using that against you. That’s one reason we passed the information non-discrimination act in 2008, to prevent employers and health insurers from using that information. But, that doesn’t mean that other people can not potentially get access to that information and use it against you. That could be your friends, or your co-workers or your family workers.

One thing you hear happening is non-paternity as a result of genetic testing, so you go get tested and your father gets tested and you find out, wait a second, our DNA doesn’t match. I think it’s something like a 10 percent non-paternity rate in this country, which is pretty high compared to what the known rate of non-paternity is. So there is a lot of those cases out there that I think are probably unknown to the family. So you can find out information that might be upsetting to you, or that might be surprising to you. You can also find out information that might be very useful, or interesting to you. That is a balance that everybody needs to sort of strike for themselves and think carefully about. So there are privacy concerns, discrimination concerns. The accuracy of the information… you have to be prepared that it’s not always accurate. There is clinical genetic testing and consumer genetic testing.

Have you tested your genome?
I have. I’ve had myself genotyped by 23AndMe, which is one of the companies that is in the middle of all this. Probably one of the most prominent companies. I paid for it myself. I did not want a conflict of interest because they have gien away a number of reduced cost or low-cost kits and I did not want to have any conflict there. And I think that is all I’ll say about that, because I’m going to be talking publicly about that in the not-too-distant future.